Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

In doing my research for my Aikido history project, an interesting subject arose from one of the questions I was asking my interviewee. How did seeing action in the military or war affect the early practitioners training in Aikido? Some of the early practitioners including O Sensei and Koichi Tohei saw action during wartime and had the experience of the loss of human life with the constant dangers of combat. I am sure the psychological experience of combat changed their views and methods of training but how? Possibly gaining a heightened awareness because of the dangerous circumstances of combat. Understanding the need to take an enemy out as efficiently as possible. The ordeal of close quarters combat and seeing the enemy being "taken out" in close proximity.
Could the surviving the ordeal of war time and combat be one of the reasons the founder and the early uchideshi were so "different" from the civilian Aikidokas? Perhaps having a true understanding of Katsujinkan and Satsujinkan( I hope I am using them in the right context) having taken and saved lives.

In doing my research for my Aikido history project, an interesting subject arose from one of the questions I was asking my interviewee. How did seeing action in the military or war affect the early practitioners training in Aikido? Some of the early practitioners including O Sensei and Koichi Tohei saw action during wartime and had the experience of the loss of human life with the constant dangers of combat. I am sure the psychological experience of combat changed their views and methods of training but how? Possibly gaining a heightened awareness because of the dangerous circumstances of combat. Understanding the need to take an enemy out as efficiently as possible. The ordeal of close quarters combat and seeing the enemy being "taken out" in close proximity.
Could the surviving the ordeal of war time and combat be one of the reasons the founder and the early uchideshi were so "different" from the civilian Aikidokas? Perhaps having a true understanding of Katsujinkan and Satsujinkan( I hope I am using them in the right context) having taken and saved lives.

I hope you can let us see the results of your project. I would be very interested in reading it.
Good luck.
dps

However, whithout knowing what kind of (and how much) action they were involved in, it will be hard to say if they were affected and how the experience changed their approach to aikido.

Also, people who served, like Tohei, Shirata, Mochizuki, etc. developed different ways of doing things. It seems similar war exposure didnīt caused similar ways of doing aikido.

I think the difference between pre and post-WW2 was the different mindset of japanese society at large before and after Japan's defeat than the first-hand combat experience in the field of some of the early practitioners.

I hope you can let us see the results of your project. I would be very interested in reading it.
Good luck.
dps

Well my focus is on the historical part of Aikido in Hawaii. I did find some really interesting things about O Sensei that are not about publicly known. This question was more of a theory that grew from a conversation I had with a high ranking Sensei who had contact with O Sensei in Hawaii.

However, whithout knowing what kind of (and how much) action they were involved in, it will be hard to say if they were affected and how the experience changed their approach to aikido.

Also, people who served, like Tohei, Shirata, Mochizuki, etc. developed different ways of doing things. It seems similar war exposure didnīt caused similar ways of doing aikido.

I think the difference between pre and post-WW2 was the different mindset of japanese society at large before and after Japan's defeat than the first-hand combat experience in the field of some of the early practitioners.

It is hard to figure out how the war time experiences affected them. In terms of experience, I was specifically referring towards how the act of being in the midst of battle knowing that you will kill or be killed(Or have killed) can later influence your training in Budo. Knowing and experiencing death as an influence in training. It seems as the older generation of Budo (specifically Aikido practitioners as I am unfamiliar with other budo) practitioners such as Koichi Tohei could do things that us modern day Aikidoka cannot. Was it just hard training? Were there secrets not passed on? Could the scars of battle be a missing ingredient in becoming the next great Aikidoka? Interesting questions.

It wasn't just that Osensei fought in real modern combat, it was that he was involved in the early-20th century drive of Japan to build an Empire. Which the Japanese people thought was a great and noble thing despite all of the atrocities they inflicted on the other peoples of Asia. Furthermore, Osensei was seriously involved with a movement that wanted to spiritually transform all of Asia.

But he survived all of that and continued to teach and develop his art for another couple of decades, living through the long and painful hangover of seeing all of that fail and realizing how misguided it all was.

People tend to regard post-war Aikido as being watered down and blissed out but I think you have to consider how much pain and fire was involved in transforming Aikido into that state. It should be more like Post (all) War Aikido.

Probably not what you want to focus your paper on, but it might be interesting to find some Japanese folks in their 80s and 90s who lived through WWII and get a sense of how that changed the national character. I think you would find that the evolution of Aikido through that period reflects that change in attitude.

When I hear accounts of the effect of the war on O-Sensei and on aikido's development I'm sometimes reminded of 'An Artist in a Floating World' by Kazuo Ishiguro. It's fiction of course, but I think it provides some insight into that post-war time period in Japan. It's written from the point of view of an artist who during the war worked as a propagandist and after the war slowly begins to question his preconceptions about the war and Japan's role in it, and to question his own specific role.

I thought the effect WWII had on M. Ueshiba is a well-documented subject? Specifically how that effected the development of aikibudo into aikido...and the transformation of the ideals behind the training (as a life path).

To utilize a somewhat related personal topic, I felt my aikido training effected me in the opposite way. The primacy of my training was in 'pre-war' aikido. The personal development and growth I received during arduous physical and philosophical training during my time as uchideshi, and doing such classes as kenshu (like a lite version of senshusei), really helped me thrive through combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. The personal growth, development of spirit, focus on self-understanding, and growth of a martial spirit helped make me adapt and sustain in those situations. So that is aikido's legacy and effect on my experiences with war. Kind of related to the topic of your report, in the periphery.

Adam, my experiences as well with respect to war. My training in budo prepared me to deal with it, I at least like to think so. How much has war shaped my personal perspective and focus? I am not really sure to be honest, but it has to some degree, it has to.

I am always suspect of post world war II martial arts and what arose from it. I think there might have also been a co-opting of many things for the sake of making a living. That thought is always on my mind.

However, I think, the totality of Ueshiba's life experiences, one of which was dealing with the horrors of war and violence certainly affected him and his philosophy. I think Cliff Judge is probably spot on..that would be my comments as well.

I thought the effect WWII had on M. Ueshiba is a well-documented subject? Specifically how that effected the development of aikibudo into aikido...and the transformation of the ideals behind the training (as a life path).

That's how it's generally understood.

On the other hand, Kisshomaru usually cited his father's key experience in the birth of Aikido as occurring in 1925 - well before the war.

Also, you have Morihiro Saito, who represented that what he was taught directly by Morihei after the war most resembled what appeared in the 1938 technical manual Budo - a pre-war publication.

Then you have the "pre-war" styles, none of which were actually taught pre-war:

Shodokan (Tomiki): trained before the war, developed and taught after the war
Yoshinkan (Shioda): trained before the war, developed and taught after the war
Yoseikan (Mochizuki): trained before the war, developed and taught after the war

That is, every one of the "pre-war" styles developed their curriculum and teaching methods after the war. None of them were actually taught before the war.

The only style that was actually taught pre-war was...Aikikai, by Morihei.

Considering that, you might add:

Aikikai (as in Kisshomaru): trained before the war, developed and taught after the war

In that case, I would submit that most of today's Aikikai Aikido had indeed been shaped by the war - but by Kisshomaru, rather than Ueshiba, as a result of his attempt to adapt Aikido to the changing society in Japan and the world after the war.

As for Morihei, there have been discussions about this before - but what, precisely, were the new insights cited after the war which were not cited before?

In that case, I would submit that most of today's Aikikai Aikido had indeed been shaped by the war - but by Kisshomaru, rather than Ueshiba, as a result of his attempt to adapt Aikido to the changing society in Japan and the world after the war.

As for Morihei, there have been discussions about this before - but what, precisely, were the new insights cited after the war which were not cited before?

Best,

Chris

Another part of the discussion that came up was the fact that O Sensei and Koichi Tohei saw combat and Kisshomaru did not. Did the battlefield experience influence O Sensei and Koichi Tohei's personal and philosophical training? Did the lack of battlefield experience of Kisshomaru Ueshiba in fact help create the modern Aikido world? If Doshu would have experienced live combat would Aikido be different today? Interesting questions.

It wasn't just that Osensei fought in real modern combat, it was that he was involved in the early-20th century drive of Japan to build an Empire. Which the Japanese people thought was a great and noble thing despite all of the atrocities they inflicted on the other peoples of Asia. Furthermore, Osensei was seriously involved with a movement that wanted to spiritually transform all of Asia.

But he survived all of that and continued to teach and develop his art for another couple of decades, living through the long and painful hangover of seeing all of that fail and realizing how misguided it all was.

People tend to regard post-war Aikido as being watered down and blissed out but I think you have to consider how much pain and fire was involved in transforming Aikido into that state. It should be more like Post (all) War Aikido.

Probably not what you want to focus your paper on, but it might be interesting to find some Japanese folks in their 80s and 90s who lived through WWII and get a sense of how that changed the national character. I think you would find that the evolution of Aikido through that period reflects that change in attitude.

I agree with you on the society as a whole influencing O Sensei. The wartime and fallout afterwards are large factors in the development of Aikido. But, I wanted to touch on the personal experience of O Sensei on the battlefield and how this could possibly another factor contributing to Aikido. O Sensei already practicing Kito-Ryu and Yagyu-Ryu Jujutsu(I think) joins the Army, and is sent to the battlefield. There he witnesses atrocities by others and himself on the battlefield. The psychological and physiological effects of cutting down human beings in close quarters and not in theory. I was wondering if O Sensei and others such as Koichi Tohei were training in "life and death" than others because of their wartime enrollment. I apologize if I am not being more clear I have to finish writing my blog perhaps to clarify what I am talking about.

Another part of the discussion that came up was the fact that O Sensei and Koichi Tohei saw combat and Kisshomaru did not. Did the battlefield experience influence O Sensei and Koichi Tohei's personal and philosophical training? Did the lack of battlefield experience of Kisshomaru Ueshiba in fact help create the modern Aikido world? If Doshu would have experienced live combat would Aikido be different today? Interesting questions.

If you're assuming that Morihei and Koichi and in one group and Kisshomaru is in another (in technical terms) because of their experience on the battlefield then I don't quite see it that way. That is, IMO it's not tied up with their fundamental technical abilities.

In terms of personality and administration, maybe, but I don't see that much of a correlation there.

Another part of the discussion that came up was the fact that O Sensei and Koichi Tohei saw combat and Kisshomaru did not. Did the battlefield experience influence O Sensei and Koichi Tohei's personal and philosophical training? Did the lack of battlefield experience of Kisshomaru Ueshiba in fact help create the modern Aikido world? If Doshu would have experienced live combat would Aikido be different today? Interesting questions.

I think it was 1924 when Ueshiba and Deguchi went to Mongolia. That's the trip where they were arrested. Somewhere I read an interview with one of the students who stated that Ueshiba changed after coming back. Put that together with Ueshiba's revelation in 1925 and I would guess that the Mongolia trip was much more of an influence on the development of aikido than WW II. How much combat did Ueshiba actually see in WWII?

I think the aftermath of WWII did more to shape Kisshomaru's vision of aikido than the actual war did. but, that's just my opinion.

Prior to 1942, there was no aikido. It had not been born. Morihei Ueshiba trained and taught Daito ryu for quite a while. Now, as Chris noted, Morihei Ueshiba only acknowledged the name aikido for his art. He never named it himself. Taking one more step forward, as Chris also noted, Saito was learning everything that Morihei Ueshiba taught prior to 1942. In other word, Saito was learning Daito ryu. When you look at the films of Ueshiba after 1942, 99% is stock Daito ryu techniques.

Sooooo, can combat and war affect something that isn't in existence? Wouldn't it be more apt to ask if combat and war affected Ueshiba's vision of Daito ryu such that it influenced his acknowledgement of the general term aikido? What then, can be said for Sagawa and Horikawa, whose arts are also generically called aikido?

I think it was 1924 when Ueshiba and Deguchi went to Mongolia. That's the trip where they were arrested. Somewhere I read an interview with one of the students who stated that Ueshiba changed after coming back. Put that together with Ueshiba's revelation in 1925 and I would guess that the Mongolia trip was much more of an influence on the development of aikido than WW II. How much combat did Ueshiba actually see in WWII?

I think the aftermath of WWII did more to shape Kisshomaru's vision of aikido than the actual war did. but, that's just my opinion.

Mark

O Sensei participated in the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-1905. I think he saw a lot of action in that war. As far as the Mongolia trip I don't think he saw much fighting there as it was more of a spiritual trip. He even confirmed this with a local sensei here. O Sensei stated " There were lots of bandits in Mongolia, we just became friends out there". How true this is I am not sure.

Prior to 1942, there was no aikido. It had not been born. Morihei Ueshiba trained and taught Daito ryu for quite a while. Now, as Chris noted, Morihei Ueshiba only acknowledged the name aikido for his art. He never named it himself. Taking one more step forward, as Chris also noted, Saito was learning everything that Morihei Ueshiba taught prior to 1942. In other word, Saito was learning Daito ryu. When you look at the films of Ueshiba after 1942, 99% is stock Daito ryu techniques.

Sooooo, can combat and war affect something that isn't in existence? Wouldn't it be more apt to ask if combat and war affected Ueshiba's vision of Daito ryu such that it influenced his acknowledgement of the general term aikido? What then, can be said for Sagawa and Horikawa, whose arts are also generically called aikido?

Yes, I am playing Devil's advocate here.

Good point. There was no Aikido previous to 1942. But, O Sensei went to war around 1905, trained in Daito Ryu around 1915 and went to Mongolia in 1925. So perhaps combat influenced his Daito Ryu therefore influenced his Aikido training many years later. Man did I start digging myself in a hole here ...LOL.

O Sensei participated in the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-1905. I think he saw a lot of action in that war. As far as the Mongolia trip I don't think he saw much fighting there as it was more of a spiritual trip. He even confirmed this with a local sensei here. O Sensei stated " There were lots of bandits in Mongolia, we just became friends out there". How true this is I am not sure.

Probably a lot of truth there, since Deguchi and Ueshiba were essentially there as missonaries - which the Chinese took objection to .

Morihei Ueshiba was relatively untouched by the war - he retired to Iwama in 1942 and lived out the war and most of its aftermath in seclusion. The folks in the countryside weren't even really affected by the food shortages and rationing of post-war Japan.

By the time he emerged he was no longer directing the day-to-day affairs of Aikido, which were left to Kisshomaru.

One huge effect of the war was that it erased the generation of students from the Kobukan. Aikido essentially started over with an entirely new group of beginners after the war. The senior people from the Kobukan either went out on their own, stopped training, or died. Rinjiro Shirata being one of the few exceptions.

Things might have been quite different if that generation had continued to train and develop.

Morihei Ueshiba was relatively untouched by the war - he retired to Iwama in 1942 and lived out the war and most of its aftermath in seclusion. The folks in the countryside weren't even really affected by the food shortages and rationing of post-war Japan.

Chris

But Morihei Ueshiba traveled to Manchuria to teach at the Japanese University as " a guest lecturer". Kenji Tomiki was in charge of the aiki-budo section together with Hideo Ohba.
I think in that time, traveling to China was not the same as now. He certainly saw the results of the war, and he must have heard ( or seen) about the attitude of the Japanese military regime towards the local people.
Just a thought in my head

Just a thought, but if you want to know the effect of war/combat on someone's aikido training, I am sure that there are a lot of current combat veterans out there who have practiced aikido before going off to war and who resumed their practice after they returned. Their experiences and thoughts might prove useful, and while they are not Morihei Ueshiba, their insights might provide you with some perspective.

I apologize I should have clarified my idea a little more. My original question should have been: Did O Sensei's participation in the Russo Japanese war affect his training and attitude about Budo? Koichi Tohei participated in WW2 and saw action also. I am not talking philosophical or the country's defeat in WW2. Did the personal experience of war and combat affect their training?

According to my source, after Koichi Tohei returned from the war O Sensei told him something changed about him and promoted him on the spot( I do realize he did this a lot.) My interviewee having felt O Sensei and took ukemi from Koichi Tohei and Doshu said there was no comparison in terms of power. He thought part of O Sensei and Koichi Tohei's power was from the fact they had seen action in comparison to Doshu who did not.

The most interesting part of the interview was that O Sensei confided that one of his biggest regrets was the taking of human life. During his time in Hawaii O Sensei was quite relaxed and let his guard down about some of his experiences. He stated that during the Russo Japanese war, the Japanese solders (Including himself) would do nighttime attacks in the enemy foxholes with katana ( Due to lack of ammunition) and kill the enemy close up. The interviewed Sensei thinks that some of O Sensei's power come from the experience of cutting human beings. O Sensei never stated how many he cut down but he did participate in that experience. Interesting stuff.

Just a thought, but if you want to know the effect of war/combat on someone's aikido training, I am sure that there are a lot of current combat veterans out there who have practiced aikido before going off to war and who resumed their practice after they returned. Their experiences and thoughts might prove useful, and while they are not Morihei Ueshiba, their insights might provide you with some perspective.

That's a great idea. I think that would open up some incite on this idea.

PS: My apologies to Adam Huss and Kevin Leavitt, I don't know how I missed their contributions here, but my thought remains the same. Perhaps such veterans (if they would be willing to share), could, with some specific prompting, provide you with those insights.

To put it in a nutshell every person I have ever met who has been in war has been shaken up and ends up re-evaluating life.

Budo is important when it comes to this.

Most people follow and get into Budo and say how it's about this and that and how they train for this and that which may happen and yet have no reality on the reality of war, actual killing. Hence the revelations of Ueshiba on the subject.